> that the other products will use HTML as a file format, but considering
> what kinds of things those other products do, 1) is HTML as we now know it
> capable of, and appropriate for these applications? and if not, what does
> that say about the Microsoft pledge to abandon their practice of
> proprietary extensions to HTML? Where are we going with all of this -- is
Office 2000 file formats are XML-based. From what I have read, the XML
formats are designed to translate to HTML considerably better than the older
formats. Also, I believe, metadata or possibly XML is used to represent
things such as Author, Description, and other file properties.
That little Office Assistant would be cool if it pointed out Accessibility
flaws. Now, that would be an improvement.
All I want is a tool that can produce HTML that isn't butchered while
maintaining its semantics. All CSS and HTML 4. I was trying out the
FrontPage 98 final last night. The HTML code view shows you perfectly
correct HTML with CSS. You press save and the perfectly coded HTML with CSS
is translated into garbage full of <FONT>, without any CSS, that makes it
visually render like, in IE 3/4, the code you intended. Yet, the code view
still shows the perfectly coded HTML and CSS! It makes my head hurt. I
guess I'll be using text editors for a while longer. FrontPage 2000 looks
promising, I suppose. I just want a reliable WYSIWYG CSS2 (screen media)
editor. (Other media would be nice, of course.) Something that doesn't
even touch the HTML structure, just adds classes and ids where needed.
,David Norris
World Wide Web - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1652/
Illusionary Web - http://illusionary.dyn.ml.org/ <-- 02:00 - 10:00 GMT
Video/Audio Phone - callto:illusionary.dyn.ml.org
Page via mail - 412039@pager.mirabilis.com
ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
E-Mail - kg9ae@geocities.com